You are here

GPhC tight-lipped on possible Boots MUR action

The Guardian alleged last month that Boots employees were pressured into conducting unnecessary MURs

Regulator is still considering information on target pressures submitted by the Pharmacists’ Defence Association

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has remained tight-lipped about any action it will take in the wake of continuing allegations of pressure from multiples to hit medicines use review (MUR) targets.

The regulator told C+D that it is sill “considering” the Pharmacists' Defence Association (PDA) survey that showed that 55% of just under 2,000 employee and locum pharmacists at the multiples feel commercial incentives or targets compromise patient safety or professional judgement "around half" of the time or more.

When asked by C+D last week whether the GPhC would launch a full investigation into Boots, the regulator replied: “We will carefully consider any other relevant information when deciding how we need to respond to the issues that have been raised.”

More on MURs

In a fitness-to-practise case published earlier this month, a former Lloydspharmacy employee told the GPhC that “constant pressure” to perform 400 MURs a year had led her to falsify 19 MUR forms.

Read what action the GPhC has taken to address target pressures at Boots so far.

Watch C+D’s video to see what the PDA has been doing since it published its survey on pressure at the multiples.

Meera Sharma, Community pharmacist

Posted on Fri, 27/05/2016 - 15:54

Why on earth is the GPhC so tight-lipped about this issue?? Time and time again, almost every pharmacist has raised this issue and apart from the PDA who have actually done something about it, the GPhC has chosen to turn a blind eye. Think the C & D should conduct an investigation into the GPhC now......or do I see another Guardian article coming up?? Shameful that this is all the GPhC can say at this stage, with more than 6 years evidence behind these allegations, or, should we all send our individual evidence to the media as well for it to be taken seriously??

Anonymous Anonymous, Information Technology

Paul Miyagi, Information Technology

Posted on Mon, 23/05/2016 - 21:28

GPhC are as disingenuous as Boots . They will try to riggle out of doing anything stating that 55% of the 2000 respondants is insufficient evidence. Oh i,m so glad I've retired. It brings a new meaning to the word CORRUPT .

M Yang, Community pharmacist

Posted on Wed, 25/05/2016 - 11:48

Perhaps it's time to initiate another petition and mobilise our greatest source of support: the public. The GPhC needs to maintain whatever reputation it has as a regulator, 55% of 2000 respondents might be ignored but millions of signatures from the public is another thing.

cummunity pharmacist, Pharmacy

Bal Singh, Locum pharmacist

Posted on Mon, 23/05/2016 - 15:57

But if someone slanders GPHC on this forum, I'm sure the action by them would but swifter onto an INDIVIDUAL.... rather than a company..... Although it's clear to even a lay person which of the two actions brings the profession into disrepute.

N A, Non healthcare professional

Posted on Mon, 23/05/2016 - 15:28

I cannot understand why, in the middle of all of this, not one of the candidates standing for election to the RPS boards in England, Scotland or Wales mentions working conditions in his/her candidate statement. If it wasn't important enough to any of them to mention, then it won't be important enough when they are appointed. This means that the RPS is going to be very poor at challenging issues like this for the foreseeable future. http://www.rpharms.com/what-s-happening-/news_show.asp?id=3993

How High?, Community pharmacist

Bal Singh, Locum pharmacist

Posted on Mon, 23/05/2016 - 15:59

Imagine if they ruled..... "boots pharmacy contracts can no longer claim for Mrs or NMS"..... That would be decisive, welcomed and show clear Consequences.... I'm sure boots would provide a legal rebuff, but that shouldn't be the worry of the GPHC right?